- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1291 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RATNA BAI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O. LATE K. MUNI SINGH, W/O SRI BALARAM SINGH, R/AT. NO. 687, OPH ROAD, NEW KEB KADUGODI, KADUGODI PLANTATION, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE - 560 067. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARENDRA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHINNU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O, LATE, K. MUNI SINGH, R/AT NO. 1128, AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, KADUGODI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE – 560 067. 2. YAMUNA BAI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. JAGADISH SINGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O CHINNU SINGH, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 4. JAI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O, CHINNU SINGH, 5. MAMATHA BAI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O, CHINNU SINGH, 6. MUNI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O, CHINNU SINGH, SL. NO. 1 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO. 1128, AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, KADUGODI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE - 560 067. 7. SMT. KRISHNA BAI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, D/O LATE, K. MUNI SINGH, R/AT NO. 620, OPPOSITE TO DHANI SINGH FLOOR MILL, NEW EXTENSION, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067 8. SMT. VIJAYA LAKSHMI BAI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D/O LATE, K. MUNI SINGH, R/AT NO. 16, 3RD MAIN ROAD, GANDHI GRAMA, SRIRAMPURA POST, BANGALORE – 560 021 9. SMT. BHAGYA BAI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D/O, LATE, K. MUNI SINGH, 9TH CROSS, ROY SINGH LAYOUT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 HOSAKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE - 562 114. 10. SMT. TULASI BAI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O, LATE, K. MUNI SINGH, R/AT BACK SIDE OF GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, POST OFFICE ROAD, KADUGODI, BANGALORE -560 067. 11. SMT. MUNNA BAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O, LATE, K. MUNI SINGH, R/AT DODDA CHINNAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDA CHINNAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 120. 12. SRI. KOTESWARA RAO RAVURI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.001, CAPSIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE -560 067. 13. SRI.C D JAMES, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O DEVASSIA, R/A FLAT NO.102, KERIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE -560 067. 14. SRI.SHAHNAWAZ SHAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O NOORMAHAMMAD SHAIKH. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 15. SMT.MOHINI SHAIKH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O SRI.SHAHNAWAZ SHAIK. 14 AND 15 ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.102, CAPSIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067. 16. SRI.HIMANSU SEKHAR MAHANTA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O RASESWAR MAHANTA, 17. SMT.SURABHI MAHANTA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O SRI. HIMANSU SEKHAR MAHANTA, 16 AND 17 RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301, MIMOSA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067. 18. SRI. SHAMSUNDAR.P AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O PILLAPPA 19. SRI. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O VENKATASHAMAPPA 18 AND 19 RESIDING AT FLAT NO.307, MIMOSA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 20. SRI. DIGVIJAY SINGH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH 21. SRI. JOYEETA SINGH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O SRI. DIGVIJAY SINGH 20 AND 21 RESIDING AT FLAT NO.107, MIMOSA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE -560 067. 22. SRI. KAPIL NIGAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM, R/A FLAT NO.301, KERIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APARATMENTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE -560 067. 23. SRI BIPIN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 39YEARS S/O BALAN PILLAT 24. SMT NAVANITHA PHUKON AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O SRI BIPIN KUMAR 23 AND 24 RESIDING AT FLAT NO.207, MIMOSA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE - 560 067. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 25. SRI GADDAM JAGAN MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O GADDAN ADINARAYANA REDDY R/A FLAT NO 308, CAPSIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APARTMENTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067. 26. SRI. ANKIT SHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O AMAR NATH SHAW R/A FLAT NO.110, KERIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADH SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067. 27. SRI. ALAVANDAR NARASIMHAN GAUTHAM NARASIMHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O A S NARASIMHAN, R/A FLAT NO.204, CAPSIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067. 28. SRI. ANUPAM KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O GOPAL KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA. 29. SMT. SHUBHRA SRIVASTAVA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI ANUPAM KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA 28 AND 29 RESIDING AT FLAT NO.205, CAPSIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE -560 067. 30. SMT. HARINI GOPALAN AGED ABOUT 33YEARS W/O SRI HARIHARAN ARVAMUTHAN 31. SRI HARIHARAN ARAVAMUTHAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O ARAVAMUTHAN 30 AND 31 ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.205, CAPSIA BLOCK, OPP SHARADHA VIDYA MANDIRA, ADITHYA PRISTINE KMC APTS, KADUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 SRI. NITHIN RAMESH ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS MFA HAS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.07.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.101/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, DISMISSING IA NO.1 AND 3 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.101/2024 being aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 3 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.101/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, the applications filed for temporary injunctions are dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. I.A.No.1 is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any third party rights over the suit schedule properties and I.A.No.3 is filed seeking to temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up of any constructions or changing the nature and character of the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 5. The plaintiff has filed suit for partition and separate possession by claiming that the suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties and therefore, she has a share in the suit schedule properties. Further it is stated that there was alleged partition deed dated 01.02.2012, but it was obtained by defendant No.1 by playing fraud, coercion and making undue influence on the plaintiff. In the said partition deed, major shares have been allotted to defendant No.1, his wife and children i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 6 and defendant Nos.7 to 11, but only 3 sites have been allotted to the plaintiff. Therefore, contending that the said partition deed is the result of fraud and coercion and is unequal partition. Hence, filed has the suit. 6. The defendants resisting the applications have contended that there was a partition deed dated 01.02.2012 to which the plaintiff was also a party and had put her signature and with full consciousness she had taken her share as the said partition deed is not only a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 partition deed but also a joint family arrangement. Further submitted that the said partition was acted upon and the plaintiff has obtained the cruces proof of the said partition deed. Hence, the properties are no longer ancestral properties. Therefore, justified the order of dismissal of the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction, thereby refusing to grant order of temporary injunction. 7. The Trial Court assigned the reason that there was partition deed dated 01.02.2012 and it was acted upon. Further, the plaintiff had knowledge about the execution of the Joint Development Agreement dated 18.05.2012 and according to the shares given to the respective sharers, their name had been mutated in the records therefore, the said partition was acted upon. Further assigned reason that in the said partition deed, when the plaintiff had been allotted 3 shares, those 3 shares had not been included as suit schedule properties - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 in the suit. Therefore, on these reasons dismissed the applications. 8. Though the plaintiff has stated that the partition deed dated 01.02.2012 is a result of fraud and coercion, but it is a matter for trial before the Trial Court in a full- fledged trial. When the plaintiff has admitted that there was a partition deed dated 01.02.2012, whatever the character and nature in the said partition deed may be, it is a trial issue before the Trial Court. Whether the said partition deed is genuine or an outcome of fraud and coercion, this aspect is to be tried before the Trial Court. Furthermore, though the plaintiff has contended that the 3 shares given to her were fraudulently taken out of by Sy.No.291/06 measuring 01 acre 20 guntas and that is only stated in the suit schedule properties, the 3 shares that had been allotted to the plaintiff out of Sy.No.291/06 were not included in the suit schedule properties. The partition deed produced by the defendants/respondents, prima facie shows that in the land bearing Sy.No.291/06, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 sites were formed and 3 sites had been allotted to the plaintiff, while other sites were allotted to the defendants. The plaintiff not only mentioned the entire Sy.No.291/06 as suit schedule properties but also ought to have mentioned the 3 sites as suit schedule properties because the characteristic of the agricultural land before conversion and after conversion into sites are different. 9. Further, the defendants have produced materials showing that the plaintiff had been executed a memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 29.10.2015 in favour of Kaveri Grameena Bank, in which the plaintiff had stated in the schedule regarding partition deed dated 01.02.2012. Therefore, the plaintiff knew the facts of the said partition deed dated 01.02.2012 and she has mentioned the very same in the memorandum of title deed. After obtaining a loan from the bank, she put up construction on it and it is submitted by the defendants that some of the properties have been sold out and the plaintiff has put up house on the suit schedule properties. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13865 MFA No. 1291 of 2025 When this being the fact, whether the partition deed is outcome of fraud and coercion is the subject matter in the suit, but the material shown by the defendants, prima facie case shows that the said partition deed was acted upon. The plaintiff in the plaint had pleaded regarding fraud and coercion regarding partition deed, but there is no pleading that the said partition is unequal. Whether the partition is unequal or not is question before the Trial Court therefore, the Trial Court has assigned reasons correctly in dismissing the applications. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45